These should be mandatory for all men to wear in public.

Some Lemmy users might benefit from putting these on their hands, too

Info has come out via several credible interviews that: He’s mostly only helping out his friends, stuff is rigged, stuff is abusive, he’s abusive to staff, he’s creepy towards women. So even most of the parts of him that were redeeming (helping people out) turned out to be fake.

That’s not a valid argument, like I already stated.

What conditions have changed in present day that would make denying someone their right to vote not fascist?

You mean you’re quitting because you’ve obviously lost.

Making a fascist idea into an official amendment does not make it less fascist but instead more so.

The point of me referencing the constitution was to show that indeed, many many many people think like I do, so much so it’s in our literal constitution. Keep up with your own arguments.

Making education a REQUIREMENT to voting is 100% fascism, and saying fascist ideals and dog whistles isn’t okay. Making education a requirement to voting is inherently discriminatory.

I get that you’re trying to gaslight me, it’s kinda cute. Rawr, you almost bamboozled me. I’m not overreacting and I’ve linked numerous very reputable sources. One of which is the literal constitution, which you’re dismissing by saying it can be amended eventually lol. I mean lol. Yes but currently everyone else including Dem president Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton and Obama and Biden and Harris currently all are fine with this constitution as it is. Like we have a ton of establishment agreement here. It actually hurts the Harris campaign to advocate for something like this - maybe you want people to vote 3rd party.

You want to amend the constitution to reduce people’s ability to vote, which you claim is no biggie and def not fascism lol.

I agree we need more accessible education - through a free national online school with adaptive learning and no time limits or age restrictions. If grandpa wants to learn 5th grade science or computer science, let him and give him the educational credit. Build an educational legacy.

But we don’t need to make education a reason to deny someone their right to vote.

https://civilrights.org/blog/to-honor-brown-v-board-of-education-give-everyone-the-ballot/

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 established the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and authorized officials to seek injunctions against voting discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 allowed federal inspection of local registration polls and created penalties for obstructing the vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned unequal requirements for voter registration and prohibited denying the right to vote based on non-material errors.

But it was not until Bloody Sunday in Selma — where former Rep. John Lewis and hundreds of voting rights marchers were assaulted and beaten on the world stage — that President Johnson and Congress would deliver the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The VRA outlawed voting discrimination and required jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to seek preclearance of voting changes from the Department of Justice or a federal court. Its impact was immediate; by the end of the year, a quarter of a million new Black voters had registered.

And, the Supreme Court has substantially weakened what remains of the VRA. One federal appellate court also recently ruled that voters of color can no longer even pursue claims under this law.

Instead, as Dr. King urged in the wake of the Brown decision, we must demand the president and Congress protect the right of everyone to vote, regardless of their race or background. We need legislative remedies that will immediately and permanently restore the ability of every citizen to fully participate in democracy. Congress can and should pass at the very first opportunity a trifecta of voting rights bills that would reinstate and strengthen the provisions of the VRA and expand access to the ballot in a host of meaningful ways for communities of color. And President Biden should continue urging Congress to do so until it happens.

In his “Give Us the Ballot” speech, Dr. King recognized that the right to vote is foundational and protects all other rights and freedoms: “Give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.” Today, we face an intersectional moment where every freedom and right we enjoy is in jeopardy. From reproductive rights to climate justice to labor rights to protecting against LGBTQ discrimination, the pathway for change that our communities seek is through the ballot — at the federal, state, and local level.

I can link this literature allllll day

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-6-2/ALDE_00013450/

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court has determined that, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, states may require a duration of residency as a qualification to vote, but such requirements will be held unconstitutional unless the state can show that the requirement is necessary to serve a compelling interest.1 According to the Court in Dunn v. Blumstein, [t]his exacting test applies because the right to vote is a fundamental political right . . . preservative of all rights, and because a durational residence requirement directly impinges on the exercise of a second fundamental personal right, the right to travel.2 While acknowledging that states have a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing fraud by voters, in Dunn, the Court determined that a one-year residency requirement in a state and a three-month residency requirement in a county was not necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.3 In contrast, the Court in Marston v. Lewis upheld a fifty-day durational residency and voter registration requirement, determining that the law was necessary to serve the State’s important interest in accurate voter lists.4

Kinda seems like majority opinion agrees with me that making education a requirement to vote would be blatantly unconstitutional. Because it denies people their right to vote. Which is literally fascism - an authoritarian dictatorship - when people don’t have democracy or the ability to vote.

The other person commenting that they prefer more informed votes to uninformed votes doesn’t even begin to border on removing anyone’s rights,

I have no issue with this statement. I quoted exactly what I took issue with, which is that they said “it should be a REQUIREMENT to have an education in order to vote.” That’s literally unconstitutional and illegal and fascist. Just like any other fascist speech, I am against that. That is indeed advocating to take away people’s right to vote. Quite clearly.

Disagree.

The only people attacking that are republicans

No, itt alone there are Dems advocating for these ideas.

Taking away people’s right to vote, or advocating for speech that does so, is fascist in nature, yes.

OK. Agree to disagree.

https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html

Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.

The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of that right to all of our people. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument:

#every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.

I have seen hens and roos take on hawks. Don’t insult them by comparing them to Trump

I already explained that you speak and type the same. No, that’s not something I do, but that’s something you seem to do. Based on you doing it.

I quoted the speech you engaged in exactly as it relates to anti-democracy speech and dog whistles.

I’m not engaging in conspiratorial thinking, that’s not what that is. Conspiratorial thinkers are known for:

displaying a deep skepticism that who one votes for really matters.

Gee, I think that voting really counts. Conspiratorial thinkers believe that voting is pointless. I also think people should run for office and use their rights and communicate with their government. I am not antigovernment. Wild, it’s like you’re wrong and you think that conspiratorial thinking just means suspecting anyone of being hostile. Lol.

I’m so tired of fascists.

https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html

For, with a country as with a person, “What is man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

“All men are created equal.” “Government by consent of the governed.” “Give me liberty or give me death.”

And those are not just clever words, and those are not just empty theories.

In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty risking their lives.

Those words are promised to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man’s possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others.

It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice. It is to deny America and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom.

Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.

The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of that right to all of our people. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument:

every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.

You realize your strawman here is a bad faith argument? In fact, I actually can’t find a single good faith argument in anything you’ve written. You start out with an appeal to emotion. Then strawman. Then no true scotsman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Also we all know you’re the “”“rational”“” other person on an alt account. You type the same and it’s been days since anyone responded to this thread. Lol.

I am voting for Kamala and I’m perfectly happy to tell people why. Maybe people will agree with me and that’s great. Otherwise, I still support someone’s right to vote no matter how they vote. Because that’s what a right is, and that’s what the right to vote grants. I disagree with any speech that advocates for limiting the right to vote, particularly because I’m a woman and women’s rights are being taken away actively.

I also think that while yes, obviously Jill Stein is a Russian asset, that doesn’t mean every independent or third party candidate is. I am on the side of the every day person and am fine with hearing criticisms of Dems and of the way we currently vote.

I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though. I’ve quoted the specific issues with what you said. I don’t really need to say more. I accept you think it’s fine to control others. I accept that you refuse to learn about civil rights and the right to vote. I accept that you refuse to analyze propaganda and dog whistles in your speech. Whatever, it’s your opinion. I also think your little comment serves as an advertisement anyway for any people reading this thread besides you, lol.

Oh wow. Cool. Thank you. Unexpected but appreciated. Hope your day gets better 💛

My profile. My avatar. My username. All grill.

reason I pushed back

Why did you push back? What was the point of ypur criticism? As I’ve stated, it was one of several examples that supported my position. That it’s a classic example doesn’t refute it. So what’s so upsetting to you that you have to be hostile?

Saying stuff like “End me,” and “Jesus,” and “you’re juvenile,” isn’t a position. So ironic how much projection people do - you complain about argumentation and then proceed to comment with 2 terrible arguments that lack any refutations or substance. So yeah, I will assume that the random hostility for no reason is because you have something going on with yourself. It’s clearly not about what I actually said. Good luck with that.

Mods, why was this comment removed? It violates no community guidelines.

A mod removed a woman saying no? Really cool

It’s a testament to … the awful corruption in industry and lobbying.

Okay, cool. So you DO understand why I brought her up in a list about corporations and how they harm the public. She’s a great classic example. Glad you admitted many of my examples were classics that would be mentioned in academia because they are notable.

What analysis am I making that is “kindergarten level?” I thought you just said it was college level? Social studies 101, no?

I’ve existed online for a long time. I used to be afraid to openly be a woman. I know how people treat me when they think I’m a woman versus a man. Yes, you and that other person come across as blatantly sexist. Any time I get unwarranted vitriol, it’s pretty obvious because I used to not get it when I was pretending to be a man. I can see how people (including mods on this sub) respond to the men I’m arguing with, give them sooooo much leeway to call me names and argue, but if I fight back and don’t act like a submissive woman, they try to punish me to get back in line. Hence why all misogynists are fascists.

Like here. The original commenter asked: “What are Dems shills for?”

I answered - corporations.

Then they wanted to know, essentially, if being a shill for a corporation was as bad as being a shill for a foreign hostile nation (Russia). Ergo, I bring up many notable cases where corporations have harmed people. More Americans have died to corporations than to Russia.

This is just true. So what’s so offensive about it you have to malign me?